TO CHOKE OR NOT TO CHOKE

In the two sports that I most closely follow, rugby and cricket, there has been a strange parallel between the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team and the South African cricket team. Since 1999, both teams have been heavily fancied in World Cups (1999,2003 and 2007 and in cricket’s case 2011) but every time they have come unstuck against less fancied opponents, leading to both teams being given the epithet of chokers. The latest incidence of the choking curse was at the 2011 Cricket World Cup when South Africa was well beaten by a fighting but underpowered New Zealand side. This follows on from a series of misadventures; in 1999, they panicked and lost the game that was theirs; in 2003, they misread the scoresheet and miscalculated how many runs they needed to win; in 2007, they lost in the semi-final to eventual winners Australia but only after a change in tactics led to a horrible batting display. The All Blacks have likewise been consistently ranked as the #1 ranked team coming into World Cups. In 1999, they were stunned by the French, surrendering a 14-point lead and conceding 30 points in a half hour of mayhem. This was after beating the French earlier that year by 50 points. They lost to home-team Australia in a boil-over at the 2003 World Cup, a team that they had also scored 50 points against earlier that year. And in the choking trifecta, they lost to a French team that played out of their skins, helped to some degree by some refereeing errors. Again, the All Blacks had posted 50 against the French earlier that year. Sometimes, it’s hard to know if it’s a choke, poor tactics or just a case of losing to a better team. Hopefully, the All Blacks, unlike the South African cricket team, will be able to break the jinx come 2011 Rugby World Cup time.

South African despair when they found out they had misread the rain sheet.

While it’s hard to avoid the choke moniker (no team is unbeatable but repeated early exits make it seem more plausible that both the All Blacks and the Proteas couldn’t handle the jandal), the All Blacks are frequently charged with peaking between World Cups, especially the year before (I, for one, can’t really see how you can plan to get a team to pick for a one month period out of four years). This is one accusation that I believe has been driven by the media without any real statistical backup.

In the period before the 1991 World Cup, the most successful year was 1989 (100%) winning record, compared to 80% in 1988 and in 1991 and 85 in 1990. The case can certainly be argued that during this period that the All Blacks peaked in 88/89, before injury and defections to rugby league really started to bite. For the period between 1992 and the 1995 World Cup, I would argue that the All Blacks picked the year of the World Cup (which they reached the final of, eventually losing to South Africa in extra time) to peak. Their results in 1992 and 1993 were mediocre and downright poor in 1994 (only winning 2 out of 6 games). For the period 1996-1999, the team peaked in 1996-1997, only losing one game and drawing another in the 22 games it played in these two years. 1998 was almost a replica of the 1994 year, except it was even worse, winning only two from seven including a 5 match losing streak. During the World Cup year of 1999, they played well without ever being entirely convincing, culminating in the shock loss (and start of the choke) to France.

It's been 24 years since the All Blacks have won the Rugby World Cup,
despite being favourites going into many of the tournaments.

In a similar pattern to the lead up to the 1995 World Cup, the period 2000- 2003 found an All Black team peaking in World Cup year, a year that included putting up 50 points against both South Africa and Australia in away games. They lost to a fired up Australian team in the semi-final, giving away an early intercept try from which they couldn’t recover from. The lead-up to the 2007 World Cup saw great results in 2005-2006, years where the All Blacks dropped only one game, a roll that extended into 2007 where they had won 10 out of 11 games leading into the quarterfinal. Forward passes and refereeing concerns set aside, they lost this game to a plucky but limited French side. Leading into the 2011 World Cup, on the back of a great 2010 where they only lost one game out of 14, one can only hope that they haven’t already peaked. Time will tell.

When have they peaked?

Have they peaked the year before the World Cup? The answer would be once.

Have they peaked two years before? Twice

Have they peaked three years before? Twice

Have they peaked the year of the world cup? Twice

The problem hasn’t been peaking too early, it seems that they just haven’t peaked at the business end of the World Cup yet.

The last New Zealand rugby myth that British scribes are all too ready to point out is the alleged stripping of the Pacific Islands by the New Zealand (and increasingly) Australian rugby unions. Such people would have you believe that New Zealand rugby agents are scouting the Pacific Islands, giving every ten year old who can run quickly a contract to play rugby in New Zealand. This is a self serving and condescending fallacy and one that could easily be construed as ignorance at best and at worst, a blatant attempt to unjustly sully New Zealand’s rugby reputation.

It is true that New Zealand has attracted players from the Pacific Islands to play for the All Blacks (Sitiveni Sitivatu is one that comes to mind, as he only come to New Zealand aged 17 on a rugby scholarship). However to say that New Zealand is pillaging the islands for its rugby talent is both disrespectful to New Zealand and to the large Polynesian community in New Zealand, who British writers apparently see as not being New Zealand citizens. The thing that overseas writers don’t get is that New Zealand is one of the more diverse countries in the world, with about a quarter of its people born overseas, which is one of the highest percentages in the world (for example, the corresponding value in the USA is only 13%). This means that statistically, it would be stranger if there weren’t a lot of foreign-born people representing the All Blacks. It would be like saying that Monty Panesar, the former English cricket player, born and bred in England, shouldn’t have played for England because he was of Indian descent. At the last census, over 130,000 Samoans, 50,000 Tongans and 7,000 Fijians, were living in New Zealand (which has a population of only around 4 million). Many or most of them are citizens of New Zealand, about half of whom were born on the islands. These includes players like Isaia Toeava, Mills Muliana, Va’aiga Tuigamala, all Samoan born but who came to New Zealand at an early age. So while it is undeniable that New Zealand has several foreign born players in its team, its also fair to say that most of them were raised in New Zealand from an early age and weren’t poached from the islands for their rugby ability. Many high profile Polynesians that have played for the All Blacks, like Tana Umaga, Jonah Lomu, Michael Jones and Ma’a Nonu were all born and raised in New Zealand.

The All Blacks always have teams with players with European, Maori and Polynesian heritage. 

The issue is amplified because of the large number of Polynesians who play for New Zealand in rugby. The number is far beyond their proportion of the population (for example, at the 2007 World Cup, 11 out of the 30 players were Polynesian but the total population of Polynesians in New Zealand was only about 8%). At first glance, it does seem odd. After all, the Asian population in New Zealand is large (about 10%) but no person of Asian descent has yet to make the All Blacks. This is easily explained by the fact that Polynesian players are ideally equipped for the game of rugby. The game is made for fast, strong, powerfully built men, a description that fits a high proportion of Polynesians. Before the influx of Polynesians into New Zealand in the 1970s, Maori players, themselves Polynesian, had (and still do) excel at the game, with many of New Zealand’s best players of Maori lineage. Again, Maori were over-represented in the All Blacks. Given this rich history, it’s no surprise that players from Samoa, Tonga and Fiji have been able to make the All Blacks in exaggerated numbers.

In fact, far from being a pillager, New Zealand is the chief exporter of rugby talent to other countries. At the last World Cup, 27 New Zealand born players represented other countries. The Samoan team contained 14 New Zealand born players (they were eligible due to ancestry rights where having a grandparent from a certain country qualifies you to play for that country). 8 foreign born players, including 5 Samoan born players played for New Zealand at the tournament. Currently, a similar number of New Zealand born players are in the Samoan squad (13), with some New Zealand born players in the Fijian, Tongan, Australian, Japanese, Italian and English squads.

Stephen Jones, the Welsh-born Times columnist, self appointed tormentor of New Zealand rugby and upholder of the English game, is one of the main perpetrators of this myth of New Zealand being south sea pirates, snatching promising players from their cradle in the hope that they will one day become famous All Blacks. Ironically, England and all of the home nations to some extent have been guilty of player poaching. Of the current England squad, 3 of the players are New Zealand born and raised, all three of who had to fulfil residency requirements to play for their new country, while 2 others have recently played for them (3 of these players had recently played for the New Zealand rugby league team). Wales have had at least six New Zealand born and bred players play for them recently. Two of them, Shane Howarth who had already played for the All Blacks and another, Brett Sinkinson, were found to have no ancestral rights to play for the country in the so-called Granny gate scandal. Scotland have had several so-called kilted Kiwis (including Brendan Laney, John and Martin Leslie), players who could claim the right to represent Scotland via ancestry links mere weeks after arriving in the country.

Shane Howarth, former All Black, who played for Wales even though he didn't qualify for them.

Much of the criticism of player poaching has been driven by the journalists on Fleet Street. It appears that they choose to ignore some blatant examples of foreign player poaching happening right under their nose. The English cricket team is well-known for its sprinkling of players who were born overseas (an interesting titbit from the 2011 cricket World Cup was that there were more Irish-born players there than English-born). Currently, at least 4 South African born players and an Irishman are playing for England, which keeps with the tradition of foreign born players playing for England (starting in the 80s with the South Africans Robin Smith and Allan Lamb, the 1990s with the Zimbabwean Graham Hick and New Zealander Andy Caddick and onto the current situation). People in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones, something that English supporters and writers should remember before writing a mis-placed story about player pilfering by New Zealand.